crystal
09-17 03:35 PM
--
Hello Friends,
Can anyone tell how long and how much does it take to
1. H1 Transfer (Premium Processing)
With in 15 days
2. H1 Transfer (Non - Premium Processing)
Your luck , ranging from month to 6 months or more...
Thanks in advance.
-rkdnc9
Hello Friends,
Can anyone tell how long and how much does it take to
1. H1 Transfer (Premium Processing)
With in 15 days
2. H1 Transfer (Non - Premium Processing)
Your luck , ranging from month to 6 months or more...
Thanks in advance.
-rkdnc9
wallpaper hairstyles How did Taylor
sachuin23
01-20 07:26 PM
This interesting article was posted on ILW.com
ILW.COM - immigration news: The Trials And Tribulations Of Highly Educated Immigrants (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2010,0120-donoghue.shtm)
ILW.COM - immigration news: The Trials And Tribulations Of Highly Educated Immigrants (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2010,0120-donoghue.shtm)
Macaca
08-16 05:40 PM
Is the Senate Germane? Majority Leader Reid's Lament (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_19/procedural_politics/19719-1.html) By Don Wolfensberger | Roll Call, August 13, 2007
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
2011 pictures hairstyle cute cute
Blog Feeds
07-23 04:20 AM
Immigration Law Headlines Has Just Posted the Following:
More... (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2010,0722-dzubow.shtm)
More... (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2010,0722-dzubow.shtm)
more...
gk_2000
11-19 02:08 PM
There is this para from Ron Gotcher's web-site:
Typically, visa backlogs are reduced by issuing visas and thus removing people from the demand list. In this case, the movement is due to decreased demand � people with approved petitions on the waiting list simply aren�t applying for visas.
(Whole article here: Home - Information from the December Visa Bulletin (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/content/190-information-december-visa-bulletin.html))
The article says that dates have moved forward because the people whose dates are current, have not applied for their visas
And suppose we could do the same -- if no one applies the gc even once the PD is current, there will be forward movement.... then WHAM! In one go, all could apply
Anyway, just a thought (or you may call pipe dream :) )
Typically, visa backlogs are reduced by issuing visas and thus removing people from the demand list. In this case, the movement is due to decreased demand � people with approved petitions on the waiting list simply aren�t applying for visas.
(Whole article here: Home - Information from the December Visa Bulletin (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/content/190-information-december-visa-bulletin.html))
The article says that dates have moved forward because the people whose dates are current, have not applied for their visas
And suppose we could do the same -- if no one applies the gc even once the PD is current, there will be forward movement.... then WHAM! In one go, all could apply
Anyway, just a thought (or you may call pipe dream :) )
gocool
10-14 08:51 PM
Hi,
I had a question regarding employment in OPT STEM extension. I recently(one week back) got a job and joined as a independent contractor(adding me as a vendor to company and at the time of joining they asked me to fill W-9 form) in company. I was joined first and thought of ask them to enroll in E-verify later.
But couple of days back when I ask the HR for company to enroll in E-Verify in order to update to school officials. HR refuses to enroll because as I was working as an independent contractor and not coming under their payroll.
Regarding how do I get paid? They will pay me bi-weekly. But I need to rise the invoice and submit time sheet and give it to them so that they will pay me a payable check.
And even I got approved OPT STEM extension couple of days back which I was applied through my previous employer.
Is there a way to come out of this situation?
Even thinking of adding a consulting firm layer in between the company and me but I don't want to do that. Please help me out.
I had a question regarding employment in OPT STEM extension. I recently(one week back) got a job and joined as a independent contractor(adding me as a vendor to company and at the time of joining they asked me to fill W-9 form) in company. I was joined first and thought of ask them to enroll in E-verify later.
But couple of days back when I ask the HR for company to enroll in E-Verify in order to update to school officials. HR refuses to enroll because as I was working as an independent contractor and not coming under their payroll.
Regarding how do I get paid? They will pay me bi-weekly. But I need to rise the invoice and submit time sheet and give it to them so that they will pay me a payable check.
And even I got approved OPT STEM extension couple of days back which I was applied through my previous employer.
Is there a way to come out of this situation?
Even thinking of adding a consulting firm layer in between the company and me but I don't want to do that. Please help me out.
more...
salvador marley
05-01 09:26 PM
here is cool hand luke - the coolest film star ever
2010 times I am sick of wearing
yabadaba
06-22 06:04 PM
Do priority dates matter now?
with the deluge of applications that will be filed,will the priority dates matter anymore?
lets say someone with a priority date of Dec 2006 (EB2-ROW) applied for 485 in Feb 2007...will his case be processed before a person with a September 2005 priority date that filed in July 2007 (EB2-India)?
so other than allowing us to file the 485 the priority date has no value?
with the deluge of applications that will be filed,will the priority dates matter anymore?
lets say someone with a priority date of Dec 2006 (EB2-ROW) applied for 485 in Feb 2007...will his case be processed before a person with a September 2005 priority date that filed in July 2007 (EB2-India)?
so other than allowing us to file the 485 the priority date has no value?
more...
GeetaRam
07-29 12:57 PM
I think yes you can as far as you have valid copy of your I-140 approval new employer can start the process and you can port the priority date.
I am not a lawyer concern with some good lawyer.
I am not a lawyer concern with some good lawyer.
hair on. hairstyles, Lady
dollar500
11-07 08:42 PM
bump
more...
kernel_flash
01-21 05:50 AM
I bet I didn't want to miss this one !
Thanks Kirupa.
Thanks Kirupa.
hot more.
loku
08-07 07:51 PM
Hi,
Please advice me on below:-
1)I am on H1b visa and currently i am on bench. My 140 is approved and my H1b is expiring on sep30 ,2009. I got rfe for h1b extension asking for client letter.
Should i convert to h4 or do h1b transfer if i could be able to get someone to transfer it.
2) Also if I go to h4 visa will my green card processing with priority date remain same if i go back to same employer and ask them to file my h1b again after i get a project. Or they again have to start the process again even with same employer. Also what if i go with different employer.
3. If I apply for H4 visa now and in mean time i get a project before sep 30 2009, then what do I need to do. can i just ask my employer to again file h1b extension.
4) SO if I do h1b transfer or go on h4 what are the pros and cons.
Please let me know ASAP.
Thanks in advance.
Please advice me on below:-
1)I am on H1b visa and currently i am on bench. My 140 is approved and my H1b is expiring on sep30 ,2009. I got rfe for h1b extension asking for client letter.
Should i convert to h4 or do h1b transfer if i could be able to get someone to transfer it.
2) Also if I go to h4 visa will my green card processing with priority date remain same if i go back to same employer and ask them to file my h1b again after i get a project. Or they again have to start the process again even with same employer. Also what if i go with different employer.
3. If I apply for H4 visa now and in mean time i get a project before sep 30 2009, then what do I need to do. can i just ask my employer to again file h1b extension.
4) SO if I do h1b transfer or go on h4 what are the pros and cons.
Please let me know ASAP.
Thanks in advance.
more...
house Mary-Kate Olsen Hairstyles
WaitingUnlimited
01-14 12:50 PM
Welcome to Immigration Voice, which is dedicated to employment based immigration in USA.
Use google to get your answer on work permit to canada using below link
Google (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=immigration+to+canada&aq=f&aqi=g10&oq=&fp=3642d8d83be4f02e)
Or Welcome to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.asp)
Use google to get your answer on work permit to canada using below link
Google (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=immigration+to+canada&aq=f&aqi=g10&oq=&fp=3642d8d83be4f02e)
Or Welcome to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.asp)
tattoo hairstyles RIHANNA LOUD ALBUM
gparr
December 31st, 2004, 07:07 AM
There's something about these that isn't working. I think klinux is right. Try some other levels of desaturation. I like the headshot the best of the two. The color shot is a nice one, but her skin looks blotchy. Good experiment. Keep trying.
gary
gary